Fuck this pompous prick. There's absolutely NOTHING about a fucking BAG that is worth $600. It's all shallow hype designed to cater to the materialistic "my shit don't stink" wealthy cocksuckers of the world. I hope the counterfeiters put this piece of shit motherfucker OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!

The appearance of larger than average waves is a known statistical phenomena to sailors---or should be. Looks like these guys might want to learn about the same rules (especially the two guys that reappears in the channel at 47 seconds)

So, if there are regular 10 foot waves, you should plan with startling regularity, on running into 20-25 foot high waves that will appear to come "out of nowhere"

This translates, BTW, into prudent navigation; since you know that waves start to "break" when the bottom is half the depth of the wave height, in a 10 foot swell, you should stay in water 25 feet deep with your boat unless you want the way-to-frequent for comfort big wave to come crashing down on top you as it "breaks" rather than sliding underneath your boat.

The most recent sailing accident attributable not following this rule was the sinking of the sailboat "Low Speed Chase" off the coast of the Farallon Islands (San Francisco Bay)---when she shaved a corner and ventured into the shallows and was crushed and sank by a breaking wave---(drowning some of her crew and the captain).

It's very difficult to beat Hitchens, he's a master debater.

It wouldn't even matter if you had a stronger position, if you are not at his skill level and I'd say very few people are, he'd quite likely still "beat" you. This Ritter guy is not on equal level, one of his weaknesses is his passion, which I'm afraid in civil debate really just gets in the way.

If you're going to throw out a bone that a country is better off with a Dictator than the growing pains of a revolution, well, just get the shovel out and start digging.

Oh Saddam might of helped the country out a little when it was crashing and burning...oh lord BETTER keep him forever. What a shallow and stupid perspective, why does he want to rule over a dump site? Of course he'd like to improve it so he can rule something a little nicer. He's still a Dictator with crimes against humanity as long as they come.

Just a weird stance to have taken, I feel like Ritter knew he was getting a bit stupid but couldn't realistically back down without reducing the effect of the rest of his arguments.

The gene pool needs cleansing...and this guy is pretty clearly from the shallow end. Do I really need to spell out why? I truly don't want Idiocracy to become a documentary.

Really? Shallow analysis much which absolutely nothing factual backing it up? Either that or you forgot the sarcasm button.

Isn't that basically the point? The title should be better but the central point that I thought it was making is that women can be shallow and stupid too, that this male-associated behaviour is also done by some women.

That's what I meant by the fake sentiment. It's pretending to be so deep and mature but as you say, it's just someone who's attracted to a pretty girl. And, despite pretending otherwise, this jackass is definitely judging the others on their shallow choice.

Even if you take it as bad casting or the clumsy metaphor I mentioned, he's absolutely not unique at all. Any relationship beyond one with the girl in the porno video you're watching involves more than just appearances and involves personality compatibility. Guys don't talk about this at the pub because it's weird; shallowness is, to some extent, expected. It's not a heart-to-heart discussion.

Perhaps why that's weird would be a good subject for his next poetry. As it is, this is just "hey I'm not judging you cretins for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I uniquely see beyond physical attributes and lack the social skills to realise that I'm not unique and I'm taking a pub conversation way too seriously and you guys are never inviting me out again are you?".

Bah. I'm actually annoyed now. Why has anyone upvoted this? I'm not judging you guys for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I almost uniquely see beyond the smulch.

Wow, of all things unlikely this has to take the prize!

It would be like the titanic crashing into an iceberg, starting to sink but after taking in some few tons of water just stops sinking.
Why?
It hit shallow waters and just lied there in the middle of an ocean broken and stuck.

That's what this is, improbable!

I think it's the interviewer or the setting of an interview that makes them come across that way.

Who the heck can be genuine and/or themselves in front of a live audience, like they're an exotic animal: Or at a studio on uncomfortable chairs with ten strong lights blinding you, four blokes behind a camera with one asking question after question, at 10:30AM. I mean, it's no wonder 98% of interviews feels shallow and boring.

Awesome story, but for crying out loud people the DSLR shallow DoF fad is getting old. Half the shots were out of focus and I'm pretty sure it was "artistic intent". Made it hard to pay attention to her story.

And note to self, if I see a girl upside down firing a bow and arrow with her feet . . . I should promptly hide as I'm pretty sure now she won't miss . . . . .

You have to look at how much individuals pay for healthcare, all hidden costs included, proportional to the amount of money they earn and get to keep.

The US government pays a lot for healthcare. When you work for a major university (as I have you), you became acquainted with how much funding their university hospital gets for research from the government. And in countries like Canada, where you can't even find a doctor and have to wait months to see one, of course the spending will be less as they have fewer medical providers and fewer variety of services. But your point is well taken. The US government does spend more "tax" dollars per capita than many of these other socialist healthcare utopias.

I agree with this from the article you posted:

"So what’s the moral of the story? Simple, notwithstanding the shallow rhetoric that dominates much of the debate, the United States does not have anything close to a free-market healthcare system."

Because we have just a partially socialized system, we have only a partial healthcare clusterfuck. But it can get much worse. Ask my colleague why he came to the US for cancer treatment (like Canadian politicians and the rich do) and didn't stay in Canada.

The US government has more money than other governments, so it can spend more. But I was referring to how much individuals pay, not how much a government pays. So, I'm not entirely sure I understand your question fully since I don't equate "Americans" to the US government. Not one and the same.

And look at what's included under "healthcare" costs. Is paying the overpaid humongous US "healthcare" bureaucracy a "healthcare" cost? What about Congressional medical insurance? Or military hospitals?
It's really hard to know, given the lack of economic calculation involved in government spending.

But you can see both sides use the same "US spends more per capita" to come to opposite conclusions. One says, it spends more but because it is not more socialist, it sucks more (not true, though). The other says, it spends more, so it means it is too socialist compared to other countries.

See if you can find data on where exactly the money is spent and the breakdown, more specifically than "healthcare."

Not knowing how to properly coil a cable != contributing to the moral dissolution of future generations.

Also, I'm getting tired of this entire ridiculous fascination society in general seems to have with people "getting their hands dirty." I grew up surrounded by intellectuals, and though they might've been able to handle simple problems around the house, there were other things they spent their time learning how to do.

These were mathematicians, programmers, psychologists and physicists, and for all the usefulness of plumbers, mechanics and others of their ilk, these intellectuals provided other services to society which were quite honestly no less vital to its success. What they taught me was how to use my brain rather than my hands, and frankly, the world as I see it is filled to the brim with people are perfectly willing to get their hands dirty but who are astoundingly unwilling to ever use their heads.

I spent about a week this summer building a fence, and for all the shallow gratification of "honest labour," I would honestly really prefer it if I could just pay someone else to do it while I stayed inside, learning about the world and everything that goes on in it, instead of working outside like some sort of beast of burden.

If you happen to be one of those people who for some reason feel that digging holes and putting large sticks in them is a meaningful pastime, I will neither stop you from doing it nor judge you for your choice. So please, would you kindly shut the fuck up about how wonderful it is to "get your hands dirty" and just leave me to my Goddamn books?

CNN/Fox News - or in general most TV 'journalist' seem to have very shallow knowledge of most of the issues they conduct interviews on. They rely on whatever notes or questions someone else prepared. It makes for a very odd "interview".

Jeremy Scahill on the other hand has a very specific and detailed understanding of the subject matter - that is what comes across here.

The 24 hour news networks need to worry less about providing 24 hours of news and more about providing one or two hours that are worth watching.

One interviewer I am continually impressed by is Terry Gross, of NPR, who you can tell does extensive research before her guest are on air.

It would be awfully shallow of people to like the guy because he's good looking and not because of any actual talent, so I'm sure that couldn't be it

Part of the obsession could be his earlier work, IMDB says he was in a popular Disney Channel show called Even Stevens from 2000-2003.

Is anyone here young enough to know for sure?

Clearly he is upset at the thought thatsome women haven't had the priveledge of sleeping with him. I know that I too wrestle with this very tragedy everyday.

I'd can't really believe any man (or woman) thinks that they are blind to appearence. Hey, maybe I am just especially shallow, but even knowing the existence of this bias I still think it impacts my decisions subconsciously. Ugg want mate. Can one change their nature? In the effort to balance your inherent bias are you not creating new ones? I am sad about the beautiful people I might have missed because my eyes won't see deeper...but is not the only person needing an apology myself? idk.